6 ms·
Replying to several others here, including this one. (Short version: use fat and starchy/tuberous food to have sustainable/stable blood sugar levels). There is
by nunb 17y ago
Replying to several others here, including this one. (Short version: use fat and starchy/tuberous food to have sustainable/stable blood sugar levels).
There is no way
to turn any carbohydrate into "significant amounts of glucose in a
healthy way" unless you are talking about digestion or metabolism of
fat.
One slice of "whole wheat" bread is worse for you than a teaspoon of
sugar (Glycemic load versus Glycemic index), not to mention the wheat
germ agglutinin and other insulin/hormone mimetics that come with the
bread, nor the gut-tearing action of insoluble fiber.
Glycogen is touted as being your energy source, but it is not. How
long can your muscles function on stored glycogen? Do you think humans
would have survived (on an evolutionary timescale) if they'd had to
eat pasta every 6 hours?
In any case, any carbohydrate/starch is converted to a fatty
substance, stored subcutaneously and used as fuel in lean times (even
rabbits and cows do this via rumen fermentation). If you keep eating
carbohydrates, you turn on the "storage-mode" and accumulate
fat. Repeated turning on of storage mode robs your body of
insulin-sensitivity. You become a non-symptomatic diabetic (if you're
lucky you'll skip Type 2 diabetes and go straight to Type 3 --
a.k.a. Alzheimer's disease).
Lastly, your body can easily convert (with hardly any usage of
vitamins and other trace elements) fat into glucose (this process is
done by the liver and is called gluconeogenesis). In contrast,
digesting/utilizing carbohydrate has a high requirement in terms of
vitamins etc., and even if it didn't, eating wheat blocks the
absorption of most of these elements (especially zinc, vitamin C and
calcium).
Your liver does gluconeogenesis because a very few organs in your body
(primarily some regions of the brain) need glucose to function. The
rest work just fine on free fatty acids in your blood (aka
lipids/cholesterol/ketones). In contrast, sugar causes a rise in
triglycerides, which are the molecules used to transport sugar.
While I don't have references right now, most of this can be found
substantiated on pubmed/medline. An easily digestible summary can be
found at http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com
And a disclaimer: a year ago I would have thought all this very
kooky. It is not. I think the news.yc folk can "handle the truth", as
it were, and so I've written this comment. I hope it helps
someone. If you're of an experimentalist bent, you can try it for yourself, it takes less than 2 weeks to adapt.
Yesterday I was on a 24-hour intermittent fast (I didn't expect it to
get so long, I just wasn't hungry) and I was programming no worse at
the end of it ;-) in fact, I'd say that free of sugar-highs I now
program much better and can concentrate more consistently. That implies more self-control, does it not? YMMV.
- khafra 17y agoYou sound down on carbohydrate-heavy diets--So, is your recommendation an isocaloric diet, a ketogenic diet, or eating only when you actually feel hungry, and only enough to assuage the hunger?
- nunb 17y ago>You sound down on carbohydrate-heavy diets-- Carb-diets are not bad per se. Western ones certainly are, as evidenced by Dr. Weston Price, Vilhjalmur Stefansson &c. In my own experience, daily arizona green teas and mochas add up, and are loaded with sugar. So is food at every restaurant, from Denny's to the poshest, including steak. >So, is your recommendation an isocaloric diet, a ketogenic diet, or eating only when you actually feel hungry, and only enough to assuage the hunger? Others are better qualified to make recommendations: Dr. Eades and Stephan at wholehealthsource. My protocol: no omega-6, eat 1/day within 5 hour period, eat if hungry, eat till full, overeat if I feel like it [0]. No wheat at all[1], limit sugar to once/wk. I est. 1.5-2.5 kcal/meal, but because of tabata/kettle-bells etc. my calorie needs are quite a bit higher, so I'll punt and call it iso-caloric. It is ketogenic, only because I prefer to eat coppa, proscuitto, butter, cream, yogurt, eggs and cheese, rather than spend time to bake sourdough, soak oats etc. Sugar (honey) and carbs (mostly sauerkraut) 1/wk. I started intermittent fasting based on an article by Dr. Eades, and stuck with it only because it was really easy to do, and lets me program pretty much from 7am to 8pm (a single meal saves time as well as assoc. post-prandial sleepiness). Also Frederick Burnham-Russell[2] is a big hero of mine, and he IF-ed his way through awesomeness. Other than the above, I don't consider it a diet in the "dieter" sense at all, although it is very Banting[3]. [0] cannot overeat butter! olive oil is allowed, and severely limited EFAs (omega 3-6-9) due to http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781400040780 http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=978140... [1] imho, all wheat-eaters have non-symptomatic celiac disease, and budding diabetes. I used to. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Russell_Burnham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Russell_Burnham [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting
- xiaoma 17y agoAs I've pointed out before on this site, the people who get the largest ratio of their food from carbohydrates live longer, weigh less and have fewer cardiovascular problems than those who eat more proteins and fats. It doesn't matter if you're looking at wealthy countries (Japan vs the US), developing countries (China vs Mexico) or poor countries (Kenya vs Guatemala). In each case, the people getting 75% + of their diets from complex carbohydrates are much better off than those who eat a more animal-based diet. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=615086 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=615086 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=613745 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=613745